IMS Health, London, UK.
J Med Econ. 2012;15(3):481-92. doi: 10.3111/13696998.2012.660254. Epub 2012 Feb 17.
To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pregabalin in the treatment of fibromyalgia in a US patient population.
A decision-analytic model was developed comparing pregabalin 150 mg twice a day (BID) and pregabalin 225 mg BID to placebo, duloxetine, gabapentin, tramadol, milnacipran, and amitriptyline in patients with severe fibromyalgia (Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire score >59; pain score >6.5). The model estimated response rates for all treatments at 12 weeks based on three randomized trials with pregabalin and a systematic review of published randomized controlled trials. Response was categorized as ≥30% improvement in baseline pain score plus global impression of change rating of much improved or very much improved. After 12 weeks of treatment, responders to treatment entered a treatment Markov model in which response was maintained, lost, or treatment discontinued. The cost-effectiveness end-points were cost per responder at 12 weeks and 1 year. Resource use was estimated from published studies and costs were estimated from the societal perspective.
Over 12 weeks, total cost per patient was $229 higher with pregabalin 150 mg BID than placebo, whereas pregabalin 225 mg BID was $866 less costly than placebo. At 1 year, pregabalin was cost saving and more effective than placebo, duloxetine, tramadol, milnacipran, and gabapentin. Compared with amitriptyline, pregabalin was not cost-effective at both dosages, although when excluding old and methodologically weak studies of clinical effectiveness of amitriptyline, pregabalin 225 mg BID became cost saving and pregabalin 150 mg BID was cost-effective.
Comparisons between pregabalin and other active agents are based on indirect comparisons, not head-to-head trials, and so should be interpreted with caution. Limitations for comparators include an inability to access sub-group data, inconsistency of response definitions, inclusion of older trials, and absence of long-term studies.
This model found pregabalin to be cost-effective in treating patients with severe fibromyalgia.
评估普瑞巴林治疗美国纤维肌痛患者的成本效果。
建立决策分析模型,比较普瑞巴林 150mg 每日两次(BID)、普瑞巴林 225mg BID 与安慰剂、度洛西汀、加巴喷丁、曲马多、米那普仑和阿米替林在纤维肌痛严重患者(纤维肌痛影响问卷评分>59;疼痛评分>6.5)中的疗效。模型根据三项普瑞巴林随机试验和一项已发表的随机对照试验系统评价,估计所有治疗方法在 12 周时的应答率。应答定义为基线疼痛评分改善≥30%,且总体印象变化评分改善为“明显改善”或“非常明显改善”。治疗 12 周后,治疗应答者进入治疗马尔可夫模型,其中应答持续、丢失或停止治疗。成本效果终点为 12 周和 1 年时的每应答者成本。资源使用根据已发表的研究进行估算,成本则从社会角度进行估算。
在 12 周内,普瑞巴林 150mg BID 治疗的患者总成本比安慰剂高 229 美元,而普瑞巴林 225mg BID 比安慰剂低 866 美元。在 1 年时,普瑞巴林与安慰剂、度洛西汀、曲马多、米那普仑和加巴喷丁相比,更具成本效果且节省成本。与阿米替林相比,两种剂量的普瑞巴林均不具有成本效果,尽管在排除阿米替林临床疗效的老旧且方法学薄弱的研究后,普瑞巴林 225mg BID 具有成本效果,而普瑞巴林 150mg BID 则具有成本效益。
普瑞巴林与其他活性药物的比较基于间接比较,而非头对头试验,因此应谨慎解读。对于比较药物的局限性包括无法获取亚组数据、应答定义不一致、纳入了较旧的试验以及缺乏长期研究。
该模型发现普瑞巴林治疗纤维肌痛严重患者具有成本效果。